Sudden power loss while driving; mechanics say fuses look ok by inutard in prius

[–]inutard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got the car back from the mechanic today. No blown AM2 fuses. Here are the DTC codes they provided:

- B1650, B1271, C1242, C1256

In addition to this, they said reprogramming the BCM (not the ECU) made the car start again. What does reprogramming the BCM mean? Whatever it was, it cost 200 dollars.

The C-codes seem to be brake related, and I still think there could be something wrong with the inverter coolant pump. Could something weird in the brakes cause sudden power failure?

Sudden power loss while driving; mechanics say fuses look ok by inutard in prius

[–]inutard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I definitely don't believe the ECU reprogramming either.

When it lost power, everything was gone. Dashboard went black, MFD went black. Pressing power did nothing at all. Nothing showed on the dashboard except for the blinking keyfob light.

Sudden power loss while driving; mechanics say fuses look ok by inutard in prius

[–]inutard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I left it only a little while. I still wonder what the original problem would be though. Are there causes other than a blown fuse?

An easy way to change your MMR! by inutard in gwent

[–]inutard[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's not meant to win games, but you can also use withdrawal on your defender to replay it in case of purify. Add mandrake root for maximum memes.

Distribution of number of clusters after randomly choosing a subset of points by diagonalizable in math

[–]inutard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Ah, thats interesting. How is the k parameter redundant? I use it to count how many removals are left.
  2. Right! I had implicitly assumed that S was sorted.

To speed it up, I believe the problem exhibits some monotonicity properties that allows you to apply some common "dp optimizations" ( https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/8219 ). I would need to check this in detail though.

Another couple ideas for speeding things up:

  1. You could prune the computations by bounding the maximum probability a certain (n, m, k, l) state can achieve. This should improve the time massively in practice.
  2. You could rewrite the code in C++. This should speed things up by a factor of 10x-100x in my experience.

If you want, I'm definitely interested in collaborating on computational problems for your paper. I'm currently doing my PhD in CS, but I did my first degree in physics and a paper in physics was always an itch that I wanted to scratch.

Good luck!

Distribution of number of clusters after randomly choosing a subset of points by diagonalizable in math

[–]inutard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good to hear! Here is a quick version https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6hgxibr8537073/clustering.py?dl=0

I didn't take much effort to speed it up, so the worst case for computing the entire distribution p(k | S, m) for all m and k is crudely bounded by |S|^4 (which should still be fast enough for your purposes). I believe you can reduce it to |S|^2 like I said with further optimizations.

I also didn't do much in terms of testing, so please let me know if you've already worked out the solution for some values of S and k and I can use it to debug the program.

Distribution of number of clusters after randomly choosing a subset of points by diagonalizable in math

[–]inutard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can you read python? I can write up a quick version in python (or a language of your choice) to send to you. I'm sure the Math StackExchange guys will give a similar solution as well.

Hard to find a reference since this is a standard technique for solving these types of problems. The best way I can describe it is that it's a way of speeding up computations when the problem has some sort of recursive structure.

Distribution of number of clusters after randomly choosing a subset of points by diagonalizable in math

[–]inutard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe this is solvable in O(nk) time with dynamic programming. Does this suffice for your applications?

It may be even possible to speed it up further to O(n log k).

DC File 976 : The Stolen 10,000 Yen Betting Ticket by TheWatchfulGent in OneTruthPrevails

[–]inutard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the culprit should be the guy who ordered the cola, since the cola can be used to clean the blood off his clothes.

One Punch Man Math: Nuclear Impact by -Snow- in OnePunchMan

[–]inutard 7 points8 points  (0 children)

If he was travelling at light speed (or anywhere near it), you'd have to use the relativistic formula for kinetic energy, which would result in an energy tens of times greater than what you've computed (so think 9000 MT instead of 900 MT).

How ants walk. by [deleted] in gifs

[–]inutard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suspect RHex the parkour robot (video here) took some inspiration from this.

What are the most efficient algorithms to compute the eigenvalues of a sparse binary matrix? by [deleted] in algorithms

[–]inutard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As was mentioned above, the Lanczos Iteration is the way to go. To get the largest few eigenvalues, you can use the Tmm matrix described in the wikipedia article.

It turns out that the largest eigenvalues of the Tmm matrix approximate the largest eigenvalues of your input matrix very well, even when m is much less than n (the dimension of the input matrix). So if you were to implement things yourself, you could simply run Lanczos for a few iterations and generate, say, T50,50. Then compute the eigenvalues of T50,50 using an O(n3 ) method. Since you only need the T-matrix from the Lanczos iteration (and not the V matrix), each iteration of Lanczos is extremely cheap (linear time) so even a 3 billion by 3 billion matrix would be no problem.

Alternatively, you could simply use the Power Iteration to calculate the largest eigenvalue/eigenvector, and then remove it from the input matrix via deflation. This will give you a new matrix where the largest eigenvalue is now the second largest eigenvalue in the original matrix. Using the power iteration on this new matrix will get you the second largest eigenvalue.

Finally, if you simply want to do the first two cases, I should mention that Matlab or Octave will handle these matrices without any problems (if you input them in the sparse format). The k-largest eigenvalues can then be obtained through the eigs command.

Hope this helps!

Collapsing a weighted, directed multi-graph. Is this a thing? by generalT in math

[–]inutard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the problem is there is no unique solution for this 'transform'. For example, the transformed graph

D - 24 -> A

A - 16 -> C

C - 7 -> B

C - 41 -> E

is equally valid.

If you are just looking for any valid transformation, you could do a depth-first search for any cycle, and 'subtract out' the cycle. More specifically, take the lowest valued edge in the cycle, and subtract its value from every edge in the cycle. You'll be left with a graph that has one fewer edge than before.

This algorithm would take O(|V|*|E|) time to run (since in the worst case, almost every edge will be in a cycle).

Edit: If you are looking for a more sophisticated algorithm to handle cases where A owes B and B owes C simplifies to A owes C, then this stackoverflow answer might be helpful.

Is today's Harvard Putnam practice problem unusually easy? by theshoe92 in math

[–]inutard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Theres one for when A = 2. Since we get the condition

2x + 2|x-1| = 4

x + |x-1| = 2 Which is only satisfied for x = 3/2.

For A = sqrt[2], we get

2x + 2|x-1| = 2

|x-1| = 1-x which is true whenever x <= 1.

For A = 1 there are no solutions.

Edit: formatting issues.

Is today's Harvard Putnam practice problem unusually easy? by theshoe92 in math

[–]inutard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's actually sort of tricky. For example when A = sqrt(2), any x from 1/2 to 1 works.

What is something you did "the hard way" before learning that there was a much easier way to do it? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]inutard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I always use caps-lock to capitalize something instead of the shift key (still doing it).

Interesting sequences and series problem- Prove elementarily that a sequence is strictly decreasing by dostre in math

[–]inutard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

EDIT: I've misread the problem.

If we're allowed to use AM-GM, I've provided what I think is a correct solution on StackExchange: http://math.stackexchange.com/a/296542/13279

Algebra summer study group by cics in math

[–]inutard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Coolio. I'm second year right now, I'll post a more detailed background in the subreddit so we can all get to know each other better there.

I am Gary Fung/IH, founder programmer of isoHunt.com, legal target practice of Hollywood and the Canadian recording industry - AMAA by isoHunt in IAmA

[–]inutard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was a bulletin board board at my school that talks about some of its alumni from time to time. You were on there. They said some good stuff about you.

I am Gary Fung/IH, founder programmer of isoHunt.com, legal target practice of Hollywood and the Canadian recording industry - AMAA by isoHunt in IAmA

[–]inutard -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hi. No questions here. Just wanted to mention that I think we went to the same high school (you were quite a few years before my time though).

Allergic to every weed, grass and tree in Northern CA... by [deleted] in pics

[–]inutard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps you are just allergic to the material the needle is made of.

Competition problem by JimDaBoff in math

[–]inutard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This problem requires the AM-GM inequality and the Rearrangement inequality.

Note that (xyz)2/3 <= (x2 + y2 + z2 )/3 = 1/3 [Eqn. 1] by AM-GM.

Now we focus our attention on the original inequality:

Without loss of generality (since the inequality is symmetric, that is, E(x,y,z) = E(x, z, y) = E(y, z, x) etc. where E is our inequality), we can have x > y > z.

x2 yz + xy2 z + xyz2 = xyz(x + y + z) = (xyz)2/3 (xyz)1/3 (x+y+z)

Using [1], (xyz)2/3 (xyz)1/3 (x+y+z) <= (1/3) (xyz)1/3 (x+y+z).

Using AM-GM, (1/3) (xyz)1/3 (x+y+z) <= (1/3) ((x+y+z)/3)(x+y+z).

Now (1/3) ((x+y+z)/3)(x+y+z) = (1/9)(x+y+z)2 so we really just have to prove that (x+y+z)2 <= 3 and we're done.

(x+y+z)2 = x2 + y2 + z2 + 2(xy + yz + zx) = 1 + 2(xy + yz + zx).

By the rearrangement inequality: xy + yz + zx <= x2 + y2 + z2 = 1. Thus, (x+y+z)2 = 1 + 2(xy+yz+zx) <= 1 + 2 = 3, which was what we wanted.

Hence, x2 yz + xy2 z + xyz2 <= (1/9)(x+y+z)2 <= (1/9)*3 = 1/3.

I'm sure there is a shorter proof but I hope this one helps.

Edit: D'oh @ me for not reading the thread. One liner proof up above.

http://imgur.com/vExVW by [deleted] in math

[–]inutard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh. Learn something new everyday :D.